New Hampshire Intrastate Commerce Act in Committee

Article 7 of the New Hampshire bill of rights says the Federal government only has powers “expressly delegated”; and as article 7 pre-dates the Constitution for the United States it was clearly understood at the time of the signing of the compact between the States.

Whereas the power delegated to the United States with concern to commerce reads “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” and a 1942 Supreme Court ruling changed the meaning of commerce to include “anything that affects commerce”.

The plain text of the commerce clause in the Constitution for the United States does not read “To regulate anything that affects commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

The 1942 change to the commerce clause was not authorized under article V of the Constitution for the United States; therefore any Federal law or regulation of commerce that originates in New Hampshire and never leaves the State of New Hampshire is not in pursuance of enumerated powers explicitly granted to the Federal government and therefore not the supreme law of the land.

Under the powers retained by the States in the 10th amendment to the constitution for the United States HB 324 is the rightful remedy to unconstitutional laws and regulations created by the Federal government; and whereas the Federal government has demonstrated an unwillingness to cease and desist in this extra-constitutional adventure for 69 years penalties for this behavior must be set.

I urge you to vote yes on HB 324 and take this needed step to restoring constitutional order to our great republic.

6 thoughts on “New Hampshire Intrastate Commerce Act in Committee”

Ok, I'm a first year law student, just starting to take Con Law this semester and even I know this will NEVER hold up. Even if this is passed the Supreme Court will strike it as unconstitutional without batting an eye.

"Article 7 of the New Hampshire bill of rights says the Federal government only has powers “expressly delegated”; and as article 7 pre-dates the Constitution for the United States it was clearly understood at the time of the signing of the compact between the States."

Your logic in this paragraph is completely flawed. Because the New Hampshire Bill of Rights pre-dates the US Constitution, does not automatically mean that it was "clearly understood" in any way, but even assuming that Article 7 was clearly understood at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, this is evidence AGAINST Article 7 having precedent. The logic goes like this: The Constitution was created to replace the Articles of Confederation and give powers to the National Government. Within the Articles of Confederation the term "expressly" is used to limit the National Government's powers, while that term was omitted when the Constitution was created in order for the National Government's powers to not be limited as such. Using this as a basis, it should be looked at that BECAUSE New Hampshire ratified the Constitution AFTER Article 7 of New Hampshire's bill of rights, that they were giving up and delegating the power, originally held by New Hampshire (and their Bill of Rights), similar to the Articles of Confederation TO the newly formed Constitution. Thus, the Constitution OVERTURNS the New Hampshire Bill of Rights and is thus greater than it. Add to that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution (i.e. The Constitution, laws and treaties of the Federal Government is supreme all over the land, within the areas that are delegated to it) the only way your argument holds water is if you argue that the Constitution ITSELF is an illegal document. No court, no President, no Congress will EVER agree to that.

"Whereas the power delegated to the United States with concern to commerce reads “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” and a 1942 Supreme Court ruling changed the meaning of commerce to include “anything that affects commerce”.

The plain text of the commerce clause in the Constitution for the United States does not read “To regulate anything that affects commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”"

Article 3 of the Constitution delegates to the Judiciary the power to interpret the meaning of the laws. This means that if they define "commerce" as "anything that effects the trade between states" than THAT is the definition of Commerce. Any first year law student understands that is what Article 3 means. If you disagree with that, that is certainly your prerogative, but that doesn't mean you are right.

"The 1942 change to the commerce clause was not authorized under article V of the Constitution for the United States; therefore any Federal law or regulation of commerce that originates in New Hampshire and never leaves the State of New Hampshire is not in pursuance of enumerated powers explicitly granted to the Federal government and therefore not the supreme law of the land."

It wasn't a "change", it was an interpretation. The Commerce clause is exactly what it has "always been", just in 1942, according to you, it was clarified. Also, please read your constitution. Neither within that document nor in the 10th Amendment is the word "explicitly" granted. The Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution is the one you should be reading. What this means is that, under Article 2, section 7, Congress is allowed to do what it feels is Necessary and Proper to enforce the powers granted to it by the Constitution. The court has usually given Congress a large amount of leeway in this case, although there are some limitations.

Also, as a Business major in undergrad, I can tell you that in modern times there is virtually no commerce that works completely within a state. Even agricultural, which historically could have been completely handled within the state ("You grow it and you sell it on your side of the street") can barely be considered 'completely within the state' anymore thanks to the interstate highway system. Granted, while the Commerce Clause may not be able to deal with any business that happens completely within the state, and has no effect outside the state, finding such a Business even as a hypothetical is VERY difficult, and in reality any statute that would deal with something like that would have such a limited amount of people effected by it it would be virtually useless.

""Under the powers retained by the States in the 10th amendment to the constitution for the United States HB 324 is the rightful remedy to unconstitutional laws and regulations created by the Federal government; and whereas the Federal government has demonstrated an unwillingness to cease and desist in this extra-constitutional adventure for 69 years penalties for this behavior must be set.

I urge you to vote yes on HB 324 and take this needed step to restoring constitutional order to our great republic.""

It sounds to me, based on your arguments, that HB 324 is a completely useless law, that at best will be immediately struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States, and at worst will be so limited that it will not actually affect anyone.

February 12, 2011 at 12:36 am

MichaelBoldin

what happens if it IS struck down and the people of New Hampshire act as if it never was?

As much as this sounds good, NH will run into problems. Many supreme court cases dealt with the issue of items being produced and sold with in a state, would be outside of the purview of the commerce clause. Unfortunately nothing is made in a single location, and once that happens you have interstate commerce, which falls under the power of the federal government to regulate as per the constitution. The power of the commerce clause has increased exponentially as we become more and more economically interdependent.